‘We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change’
Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.
“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.
Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.
“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.
“…If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.”
The professors also note this ban on debate extends to discussion among students in the online forums. Moreover, students who choose to use outside sources for research during their time in the course may select only those that have been peer-reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the email states."
------------------------------
This is clearly a form of academic repression outlawed at the University of Paris in 1215 AD, 35 years before the the invention of the Scientific Method at the same school. How in the world do we find truth if we outlaw other opinions and evidence? Any such philosophy is committing suicide; witness the Democratic Party.
The fact of the matter is that the famous "97%" figure invented by Naomi Oreskes, then at Scripps Institute, where "global warming" was invented by John Revel, was the percentage of authors on the subject that offered no opinion whether or not weather variations were caused by man. SCIENCE Magazine published an "errata" on that point after her paper on her survey of the literature caused many objections to her contention by the authors and analysts. These two academicians are ignorant, ill-advised and amatuer scoundrels.
This is clearly a form of academic repression outlawed at the University of Paris in 1215 AD, 35 years before the the invention of the Scientific Method at the same school. How in the world do we find truth if we outlaw other opinions and evidence? Any such philosophy is committing suicide; witness the Democratic Party.
The fact of the matter is that the famous "97%" figure invented by Naomi Oreskes, then at Scripps Institute, where "global warming" was invented by John Revel, was the percentage of authors on the subject that offered no opinion whether or not weather variations were caused by man. SCIENCE Magazine published an "errata" on that point after her paper on her survey of the literature caused many objections to her contention by the authors and analysts. These two academicians are ignorant, ill-advised and amatuer scoundrels.
If you have always thought scientists were always truthful, men and women of high purpose and principle you have not read the history of science. It has had more than its' fair share of scoundrels and scaliwags. From the days of the alchemists. We have an extensive collection of their stories. Click on:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please comment and make suggestions.